Spanish lessons for Britain

After the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war, it fell to Spain and then Britain to be Europe's frontline targets for Islamist terrorism's fanatics. In both cases, ordinary citizens of the two countries' capital cities were slaughtered without warning or compunction while they journeyed into work. Some 190 Spaniards were murdered and a further 1,800 injured in the Madrid commuter-train bombings of March 2004. Sixteen months later, 52 Britons died and another 700 were injured in the London rush-hour bombings. These bloody and echoing events forged a bond of victimhood between the inhabitants of the two great cities. But it was not matched, until now, by a comparable sense of justice. In London this was because the principal bombers died with their victims, leaving vital questions unanswered. In Madrid several suspects also blew themselves up; yet 28 others were finally put on trial this year. The conviction yesterday of 21 of these defendants and the acquittal of seven others does not resolve everything about one of the worst terrorist outrages in modern Europe. But it closes a chapter with a considered verdict - and that is something that has not happened in the case of London.

By coincidence, just as the Spanish courts were handing down their verdicts on the Madrid defendants yesterday morning, Britain's law lords were simultaneously ordering our government to rethink the control-order regimes imposed on six suspects under the 2005 anti-terror laws. The law lords stopped short of striking down the entire control-order system - which take away a suspect's liberty without allowing them a trial. But they insisted on strict conditions about evidence and the scope of the orders which may make the system effectively unworkable.

It was another dramatic reminder, like the Belmarsh judgment three years ago, that British anti-terrorism laws regularly fail to provide a proper balance between the safety of the state and its people on the one hand, and the upholding of justice and the rule of law on the other. Given the juxtaposition of the successful conclusion of the Madrid trial and the law lords' ruling, and bearing in mind that, while Spain has barely altered its legal code since 9/11, Britain is about to introduce yet another major piece of anti-terrorism law in next week's Queen's speech, it is easy to suppose that Spain has managed to deal with its terrorism challenge more effectively and with greater respect for due process than we have done.

That would be an oversimplification. Bear in mind that the Madrid trial was conducted in a special anti-terrorist court in front of a panel of three judges sitting without a jury - shades of Northern Ireland's reviled Diplock courts. Yesterday's verdicts - which included a highly controversial acquittal - have also failed to satisfy many of the victims and their lawyers. Spanish lawmakers are also looking at new laws on control of explosives and at shifting the burden of proof in some terror cases. No one should suppose that Spain's system is perfect.

Nevertheless Spain's experience challenges Britain to do these things better than it has done so far. Our systems may not be the same - and the Spanish police also had some lucky breaks in their post-Madrid investigations. But there are important parallels too. Spain has deep historic links with the Islamic world, as we do. Spain had built up a strong corpus of laws during the Eta terrorist years, just as we did during the IRA ones. Yet, with all the provisos, Spain has managed to secure lawful convictions under these pre-existing laws without either legislative hyperactivity or threatening to do away with essential liberties. Suspects in Spain are rarely held for more than a maximum of 10 days without charge, compared with Britain's already draconian 28 days, which Gordon Brown now wants to increase. There are many differences between our situations, but Britain needs to learn a Spanish lesson.